Couldn't have put it better myself

Having not blogged about the tiresome tirade by Polish PM Donald Trusk at the start of the Polish Presidency of the EU (July 1) and his attacks on those political leaders who are paying into the kitty that Poland benefits from (well, some of Poland, not the business section, given how many of them are still here as they cannot find employment back home), I can do no better than link to Charles Crawford's excellent analysis. Mr Crawford knows Poland well, having been our man there from 2003 to 2007 and having taken the trouble to learn about the country, its history and its people.

The next Presidency is coming

End of December means many things to many people but to the EU it means only one thing: a new incumbent in the Presidential seat. As of Saturday it will be Hungary's turn to make pronouncements, promise actions and, in six months' time, fade away without achieving any of those promises.

Curiously enough the Hungarian government is not promising to simplify legislation and get rid of red tape, the never-ending mantra of previous incoming Presidencies. No, indeed. As befits a country with enormous economic problems (more here) Hungary is promising fiscal discipline to be the leitmotif of its Presidency. Well, that's nice to know.

Meanwhile, there are a few other problems. There is, for example, the media law:

Under the legislation, passed by Hungary's parliament Tuesday, a new authority will have the right to regulate all media content and impose fines of up to €730,000 ($950,000) or shut down news outlets that flout rules.

Apparently, the critics have not seen the small print of the new law. In order to facilitate this an English translation is on the way.

According to Statewatch, who, possibly, have not read the small print:

The European Newspaper Publishers’ Association (ENPA) and the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), expressed concern at a draft law that would impose extensive fines against journalists and publishers if they refuse to disclose their sources or publish information deemed inappropriate by the government.

The proposed law, if passed, would seriously endanger freedom of the press by creating room for a subjective judgment about any individual news story and penalise publishers and editors through government-controlled regulatory bodies. The proposal could dramatically limit objective news media.

Let's not get too excited about the concept of objective news media, one that is hard to find at any time but it is certainly true that governments should not be in a position to decide what is and what is not inappropriate for the media to publish.

It seems that Hungarian Radio is already acting according to the new legislation in silencing criticism of it. Amusingly enough the Daily Telegraph wrote about a week ago that Hungary would be unworthy of the EU Presidency if it passed the new media law and might even face suspension from the EU. It never ceases to amaze me that journalists can come up with bilge like that.

Altogether the political situation in Hungary is as messy as the economic one. Let us not forget that the previous incumbent of the EU Presidency was Belgium, a country that cannot even agree on its own government. Hungary is, therefore, eminently suitable for the glorious position of the rotating EU Presidency. Or as they sing on the other side of the Pond: Hail to the Chief! Of course, they actually elect their Presidents.

Compare and contrast

A reader has called my attention to the fact that the EU has not gone completely dormant and the Swedish Presidency (for another three days) has issued a couple of statements about recent events in the Middle East.

One is about the violent suppression of anti-government protests that took place during the Shi'ite Ashura commemorations in Iran. (Curious, is it not that the first Muslim martyr, the Prophet's grandson, Imam Hossein or Husseyn as many prefer to spell it, should have been murdered by other Muslims. But I digress.

Witnesses told RFE/RL that in the course of the Ashura events, security forces shot directly at people and attacked them with batons and tear gas. They described chaos in the streets and blood on the sidewalks, and reported fire and heavy smoke in some parts of Tehran. Instead of religious slogans, protesters chanted against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, with some calling him a murderer.

One young Iranian man, who spoke to RFE/RL on condition of anonymity, said: "It wasn't a Green Ashura, it was a red Ashura -- a bloody Ashura."

Eight protesters were reported killed as a result of the violence. Among them was 35-year-old Ali Musavi, the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Musavi, who finished second to incumbent President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in the June 12 vote.

Nor did it stop there.

Reports emerged today that authorities were continuing to round up dissenters. After Iranian police said they had detained about 300 people, an opposition website (Parlemannews) claimed today that seven prominent oppositionists were among them, including three aides to Mir Hossein Musavi and prominent human rights activists Emad Baghi and Ebrahim Yazdi, a former foreign minister.

How very different from the Ashura procession I saw along Bayswater Road.

The Presidency has issued a statement about events in Iran in which it described itself as being "concerned at the reports of violent suppression of demonstrations and arbitrary detentions in Tehran and other Iranian cities during the recent Ashura commemorations".

Well, I suppose we are all concerned, though it seems slightly pointless to issue statements that tells us that, further informing the world that the EU and its Presidency are committed to the notions of democracy and human rights.

Luckily there are matters the Presidency feels much more strongly about. This is the statement about the proposed building of apartments in East Jerusalem by Israelis:

The Presidency of the European Union is dismayed at the announcement of the Government of Israel to build nearly 700 apartments in occupied East Jerusalem.

Settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law. The plans by the Israeli Government to expand such settlements contravene repeated calls from the international community, including those of the Quartet, and prevent the creation of an atmosphere conducive to resuming negotiations on a two-state solution. The Presidency of the European Union thus urges the Government of Israel to reconsider these plans.

The Presidency recalls that the European Union has never recognised the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967. If there is to be a genuine peace, a way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states.

Up with this the EU will not put, though it is not quite clear what they intend to do about it all beyond expressing their dismay, which is, let us face it, stronger than the concern they managed to show towards the bloody suppression of all attempts to introduce some kind of democratic ideas in Iran.

Furthermore, the Swedish Prsidency and the European Union foreign policy makers as a whole, might like to contemplate the fact that it is not the status of Jerusalem that is the central problem in that part of the world but Israel's existence and her right to exist.

Don't see it, myself

EurActiv is reporting that there is considerable excitement amongst the colleagues a.k.a. member states of the EU about the fact that the unreliable Czech Republic with its collapsing government and bloody-minded President will no longer be taking the rotating presidency of the Union. It will now be the much more reliable Swedes.

The Swedish government has already announced that the aim of the presidency will be "to push for 'more focused' Lisbon Strategy". A little late, methinks, as the aim of the Lisbon Strategy was to create by the rather unusual method of endless rules and regulations as well as scorecards, the most dynamic economy in the world by 2010. That economy was going to be the European one, whatever that might mean. Greater focus in the last six months of the allotted time is not going to achieve those desired results.

What I find rather peculiar is the assumption that somehow the Czech presidency made a difference and left scars on the political process of European integration. What difference? What scars?